Hope Florida Foundation paid woman who then posted video praising charity
'I had no high school diploma,' said Ginger Faulk, a 35-year-old mother of two, describing her circumstances when she contacted Hope Florida in 2021. 'I couldn't pay the rent or put food on the table, until I met my Hope Navigator.'
Hope Florida gave her the resources to get an education, Faulk said in the video, adding that she graduated from college with honors 'as a medical practitioner.'
The curious payment to Faulk — disclosed among other foundation expenditures in response to a public records request from the Orlando Sentinel — adds to the swirl of questions surrounding the state's Hope Florida program and the Hope Florida Foundation, its associated non-profit. DeSantis administration officials have claimed the program has helped 30,000 people off welfare but have provided scant details about who and how.
An earlier report by the Sentinel about the experience of another Hope Florida client, touted in an online magazine, found the claims did not match what the woman said actually happened, overstating the help she was given.
Reached by phone, Faulk declined to comment for this story. The Hope Florida Foundation and Department of Children and Families, which oversees the foundation, did not respond to questions about the money sent to Faulk either.
Faulk's video was released just as Gov. Ron DeSantis was pushing the Legislature to make Hope Florida an official part of the state government, instead of a loosely affiliated program across more than a dozen different state agencies without a budget of its own.
Within weeks, that effort sparked a legislative inquiry into the program. The inquiry, led by a House committee led by Rep. Alex Andrade, R-Pensacola, soon prompted controversy when it was revealed that $10 million from a $67 million Medicaid settlement meant to pay back Florida for prescription drug overpayments instead landed in the coffers of the Hope Florida Foundation.
That money was then quickly redistributed to two nonprofits that in turn gave millions to a DeSantis-backed political committee set up to defeat Amendment 3, the ballot measure that would have made recreational pot legal.
The March payment was the second time in two years Faulk received money from the Hope Florida Foundation. She also was given $392 in May 2024. And she appeared to be on the administration's radar.
DeSantis mentioned her in his state-of-the-state speech at the opening of the 60-day legislative session in March, using her story to pitch his Hope Florida legislation, which would ultimately be rejected by lawmakers. And last year the DeSantises honored Faulk as a Florida Hero at the governor's mansion.
The Florida Heroes brochure said she was a hero for using Hope Florida to get short-term rental and utility assistance from a local charity so she could focus on her education and career goals, pass her GED and enroll in a CareerSource healthcare program.
Without knowing why the foundation paid her, Faulk's video casts some doubt over her motive for providing a testimonial, said Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University.
'There is nothing wrong with a recipient expressing gratitude,' Jarvis said. 'But if she was paid, as a paid spokesperson, that should be disclosed.'
The payments to Faulk are among the dozens of unexplained payments listed in the foundation's $550,000 worth of expenditures made since its inception in August of 2023. The list of payments provided to the Sentinel did not include any details about the purpose of the spending.
The largest single payment was $100,000 to Florida Emergency Management Assistance Inc., also known as the Florida Disaster Foundation, a direct support organization for the Division of Emergency Management created in 2023.
Two Panhandle resorts owned by the same company received the next largest amount of money — $55,500 to the St. Joe Resort and $40,000 to Camp Creek Inn.
The largest collective expense was the distribution of $1,000 bonuses to each of the 156 state workers who had been reassigned as Hope Navigators. Another half dozen state employees received bonuses of $2,500 each. Mallory McManus, the former deputy chief of staff at DCF, received $7,456.
The Hope Florida Foundation and DCF did not respond to questions about these expenditures, either.
'Those expenditures need more clarity and detail,' Jarvis said.
The larger sums raise the most questions, including what services those companies provided to receive those funds and how they spent it, Jarvis said.
Also, he asked, what is the foundation doing with the remaining $1.5 million? 'What are the plans for that?'
Prior to receiving its now controversial $10 million donation from the Medicaid provider, the foundation had only raised $2 million and paid out the $550,000, according to a spreadsheet the Orlando Sentinel received. The records only identify the amount paid, the date and the recipient. Requests for supporting documentation that might explain the purpose of the donations are still pending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
11 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Rural hospitals brace for crisis as GOP bill slashes Medicaid funding
Rural hospitals in the U.S. already operate on a razor's edge, but new cuts to Medicaid in the Republican appropriations bill could tip many of them into failure. The Republican megabill that the House just passed in a 218-214 vote is a massive piece of kitchen sink legislation, extending Trump's tax cuts and allocating hundreds of billions for immigration enforcement, among the president's priorities. To pay for all of that spending, the bill will slash programs that make up the federal safety net by the largest amount in decades, mostly through major cuts to Medicaid. Medicaid is the joint federal and state health insurance program that millions of low-income Americans rely on for healthcare coverage. As of March of this year, 71 million people in the U.S. were enrolled in Medicaid, which also extends coverage for pregnant people, elderly adults, and Americans with disabilities. An estimate from the Congressional Budget Office expects about 12 million people will lose their Medicaid coverage under the legislation. Among its major changes, the bill would cut $1 trillion in funding from Medicaid over the next decade and add new eligibility restrictions that require able-bodied adults up to age 65 to work 80 hours per month to qualify. Older Americans between ages 50 and 64 could be hit hardest by the new work requirements, according to analysis from the UC Berkeley Labor Center. That set of aging adults is too young to be eligible for Medicare but face the challenge of juggling work with chronic illness and disability, two factors that contribute to plunging employment numbers after age 50. Rural hospitals hit hardest Beyond shrinking the number of Americans covered by Medicaid, the bill would also place a cap and a gradual set of reductions on the taxes that states charge health providers to pay for their share of Medicaid. Those taxes are a big piece of what makes the system work, and any changes risk destabilizing an already fragile healthcare system. Limits to state reimbursements are anticipated to further imperil hospital and clinic funding, particularly in rural areas where a larger share of the population relies on Medicaid. In those areas, an increased number of people without healthcare coverage and preventive care also means more patients showing up in emergency rooms. 'In Nebraska, nearly half of our rural hospitals are currently operating in the red,' Nebraska Hospital Association president Jeremy Nordquist said. 'This change would pull the rug out from under them, leading to a loss of critical patient services and putting the health of our communities at risk.' On Tuesday, Senate Republicans added more funding for rural hospitals to compensate for funding losses after a push from Maine Sen. Susan Collins, whose state stands to be slammed by the cuts due to a large rural population that relies on Medicaid. An earlier version of the bill allocated $25 billion to rural hospitals over five years, a number that was doubled to $50 billion in the final version. Whether the $50 billion fund will be enough to offset a rural healthcare crisis is about to become a live social experiment with steep stakes. At least one hospital that's closing its doors in the state is already blaming Trump's signature legislation. Nebraska's Community Hospital just announced the closure of a clinic in the rural southwest Nebraska town of Curtis, which serves 900 people locally. 'Unfortunately, the current financial environment, driven by anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid, has made it impossible for us to continue operating all of our services, many of which have faced significant financial challenges for years,' Community Hospital CEO Troy Bruntz said. Over a million could lose coverage According to the National Rural Health Association, the bill is expected to reduce Medicaid funding for rural hospitals by 21% while leaving more than a million rural residents without coverage. 'While the Senate Finance committee proposal has made some cuts deeper than the House-passed bill, both are certain to lead to more hospital closures and reduced access to care for rural residents, exacerbating economic hardship in communities where hospitals are major employers,' the association wrote in a report exploring the rural impacts of the bill. An analysis by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that hospitals would be down $321 billion over the next decade if changes in the less severe House version of the bill went into effect. On top of that, hospitals could be hit with $63 billion in additional costs from handling a larger base of uninsured patients, including those seeking emergency services. The cuts to Medicaid are controversial, even among some of the lawmakers that ultimately supported the bill, which the Senate approved on Tuesday. 'Do I like this bill? No,' said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who cast a decisive vote for the legislation after securing special carve-outs for her state. 'I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries attempted to push back Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline by filibustering the massive legislative package, speaking on the House floor for eight hours and 44 minutes. With Jeffries' record-setting critique wrapped up, Democrats could no longer delay the inevitable vote on Trump's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which passed the House on Thursday afternoon.
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Medicaid Cuts Could Take Effect In 2026, Experts Say
The House voted to pass President Donald Trump's megabill Thursday, which cuts more than $1 trillion in Medicaid and federally funded health care programs over the next 10 years, and is now heading to Trump's desk—meaning states and recipients could start seeing real changes or funding cuts as soon as next year, experts say. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., arrives as House Republicans work to pass President ... More Donald Trump's signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts by a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, July 2, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved The bill would limit how states fund Medicaid programs, including a phased reduction in provider taxes starting 2026, and the introduction of work requirements which would take effect in 2027—changes experts say could force states to cut services, reduce enrollment or find new funding within the next few years. Leah Rosenstiel, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, told Forbes the bill won't implement all its Medicaid changes at once, but said some states could be forced to rethink their Medicaid financing strategies almost immediately. Rosenstiel said the existing 6% limit on taxes that states can impose on health care providers—which is how they raise revenue and pay for federal reimbursement—would phase down to 3.5% by 2032, with states losing more money for Medicaid. Leighton Ku, a health policy and management professor at George Washington University, told Forbes the Medicaid provisions—including work requirements for Medicaid expansion states—are expected to begin by 2027, with coverage losses 'really hitting home' in 2028 and 2029. Some states—like Alaska, which doesn't use provider taxes—would see little immediate change, where others that lean heavily on provider tax revenue could be forced to cut Medicaid services or find alternative sources of funding within the next year or two, according to Rosentiel and Ku. The most immediate impact on Medicaid would be changes to provider taxes, which would also change the way states work with health care providers to help finance their Medicaid programs, according to Ku. He told Forbes, 'Some of those changes are supposed to go into effect as soon as legislation is passed' and that 'We would begin to see some changes in the next year, in 2026.' Ku also said work requirements for Medicaid expansion states would follow suit in 2027. The bill would cut Affordable Care Act marketplaces, leaving nearly 12 million Americans without health insurance by 2034, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. What Can States Do To Protect Medicaid Funding? Rosenstiel told Forbes states have always had 'a lot of flexibility when it comes to Medicaid,' and that wouldn't change under Trump's bill. 'If a state government wanted to reduce spending on roads and put that money toward Medicaid, they're free to do that. States can also, of course, choose to adopt Medicaid expansion or choose to not adopt Medicaid expansion,' Rosenstiel said. She said the majority of states will have to make changes to their provider taxes if the bill were enacted. 'Medicaid is so much money, and the states receive so much money from the federal government for Medicaid—I would be really surprised if state leaders weren't already at least starting to think about what they would want to do even if some changes don't go into effect until a year or two from now,' she said. House Passes Trump's Signature Spending Bill, Meeting July 4 Deadline (Forbes) Trump's Policy Megabill Cuts More Than $1 Trillion From Medicaid: Here's How (Forbes)
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Takeaways as Congress sends tax and spending cuts bill to Trump's desk
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has passed the massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump calls 'beautiful,' getting it to his desk a day before the July 4 deadline that he had set. The 887-page bill includes spending cuts, tax breaks, military spending, money for deportations and other longtime GOP priorities like cuts to Medicaid and renewable energy programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the bill 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits. Some takeaways from Trump's 'big beautiful bill' and the path Republicans took to pass it: Loyalty to Trump carries the day By Congress time standards, the bill moved at lightning speed — reaching Trump's desk less than six months into his term. That was only possible because Trump set a firm deadline, July 4 and pressured Republican lawmakers to get it done. Few were left to resist, as most of Trump's Republican critics over the years have either retired or lost reelection. Unfailingly loyal House and Senate Republicans were quick to make his priority their priority. Plus, GOP lawmakers know they would suffer political consequences for dissent. One senator who did, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, abruptly announced on Sunday that he would retire next year — a day after saying he would oppose the legislation because of its reductions to health care programs. 'Tillis is a talker and complainer, NOT A DOER,' Trump had posted on X of Tillis. Tillis joined Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky in voting against the bill in the Senate. In the House, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were the only Republicans to vote against it. Massie has also faced Trump's wrath. 'Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes 'NO' on virtually everything put before him,' Trump posted last month. 'Trifecta' for the win The legislation's passage was a direct outgrowth of the GOP election sweep that gave them the White House and majorities in both the House and the Senate. The so-called 'trifecta' of power only comes around every so often, and Republicans were determined that it not go to waste. Crucially, holding power in both chambers of Congress gave Republicans the option of using a budget procedure that overrides the Senate filibuster and allows the majority to pass legislation with only 51 votes. That meant no Democratic support was needed and they never had to involve them in the process. Both parties have used the budget procedure to pass priorities over the years when they have found themselves with a similar trifecta — Democrats to pass the Affordable Care Act under President Barack Obama in 2010, Republicans to pass tax cuts in 2017 during Trump's first term and Democrats again to pass President Joe Biden's climate, health care and tax package in 2022. Thune and Johnson get it done for Trump The bill was a major test for both House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., both of whom had very narrow majorities to navigate and wanted to show Trump that they could get his legislation passed. The two initially disagreed on how to move forward — Johnson wanted one bill, Thune wanted two — but they eventually agreed and worked together with Trump to push the bill through each difficult step and win enough votes. Whatever it takes to get the votes As Trump pressured the GOP leaders for a big July 4 win, he appeared to be mostly flexible when it came to what was actually in the bill. So Johnson and Thune worked to get the votes by listening to members across the ideological spectrum and adjusting the legislation as needed to ensure that they kept nearly every single Republican on board. To get that much support, the leaders packed the bill with personal priorities for some of their most skeptical members. House Republicans from New York won a higher cap on state and local tax deductions. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley won long-sought money for those impacted by nuclear development and testing. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski won several provisions to help her sprawling state, including carve-outs for Medicaid and food stamps. Murkowski was the last holdout in the Senate, and Thune set votes in motion within hours of her commitment to support it. 'Failure is not an option,' he said a month ago. 'We've got to get to 51.' Democrats bet big on disapproval Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., have kept up a steady opposition to the legislation and believe that its Medicaid and food stamp cuts could win them new seats, and perhaps a majority, in next year's midterm elections. 'This vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come,' Schumer said after the Senate passed the bill. 'Because of this bill, tens of millions will lose health insurance. Millions of jobs will disappear. People will get sick and die.' Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz posted on X Wednesday evening that 'it is entirely possible that we win the Senate' if the bill passes. 'I hope this bill dies, but if it passes they will pay a steep political price,' Schatz wrote. Delay, Delay, Delay With no power to stop the bill, Democrats embraced the powers they did have and forced long delays as Republicans neared passage. Jeffries tied up the House floor for almost nine hours just as Republicans secured the votes, delaying their big win — and members' flights out of town for the July 4 holiday — with a speech criticizing the bill and sharing stories of people who would be affected by cuts to Medicaid and other programs. 'This is not who we are,' Jeffries said. Schumer delayed Senate passage as well, forcing Senate clerks to read the entire 887-page bill, a step in the process that leaders usually agree to skip. It took almost 16 hours. Debt ceiling fight is averted One huge win for Republicans is that the bill increases the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills. By adding that provision, Republicans avoided risking a U.S. default and also having to pass the debt limit increase separately, a move that would have required 60 votes in the Senate and Democratic support for passage. The last time Congress raised the debt limit was 2023, after weeks of high-wire negotiations between the Republican House, the Democratic Senate and President Biden. Starting at no, ending at yes Many Republicans had deep concerns about the bill. Almost every one of them voted for it anyway. Hawley and Murkowski strongly criticized the Medicaid cuts, but voted for the legislation when some of their state priorities were added. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson had once called the legislation 'immoral' and 'grotesque,' arguing that it would raise deficits. But he also voted for it. New York lawmakers fought for quadrupling the cap on the state and local tax deduction to $40,000 in the House-passed bill and were unhappy when the Senate went along with that for just five years instead of 10 years. But, in the end, they accepted the change. 'I can't be a yes on that,' Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said. But when the roll was called, he was. No 'John McCain moment' The late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., famously killed Trump's attempt to repeal Obamacare when he became the deciding vote with a thumbs down in 2017. With narrow margins in both chambers, any Republican could have similarly killed this effort. Murkowski, who, like McCain, voted against the Republican health care effort in 2017, was the only undecided senator left in the final hours before the Senate vote. But she ultimately supported it, a decision she called 'agonizing.' ___ Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.
